Thursday, July 2, 2015

Liberal Christians are Christians no more.

A short thought that I'd like to expand on later, but which I'll put succinctly soon.

Right now, we're starting to see liberal Christians preparing to act as apologists for the next round of attacks on Christianity in the US - namely, penalizing and attacking Christian churches (and any organization which is Christian in both name and policy) for opposing same-sex marriage. We're going to start hearing more and more arguments like this from liberals:

"When you think about it, Christians being untaxed is really unfair. Shouldn't we render unto Caesar? That's a bible quote, you know!"

"Churches are part of society, and if you really want to be part of society you should be doing your fair share. Hell, even if this wasn't being pushed to crack down on churches that oppose gay marriage, we should DEMAND to be taxed!"

"Christians need to reclaim the public mantle of love, and people see opposition to gay marriage as hateful! We should support these laws to encourage Christians to give up hate!"

And so on, and so on.

To that, I'm going to come out with my own view on these matters: the Christian response to the SCOTUS decision should be to kick liberal Christians out of their churches.

It's a very easy line in the sand: if a person supports penalizing Christian businesses or churches for rejecting same-sex marriage, or refusing to provide service for a same-sex marriage, they should not be welcomed at a Church. In fact, they should be told to leave, and regarded as no longer a member of either that church, or the faith in general.

This is going to be called divisive by some. It is - it's a necessary dividing line. All manner of politics are things Christians can disagree over, but starting here is where the line must be. Once you support throwing the weight of the state against Christians for the crime of opposing anal sex, you're done. It makes for a reasonable enough yardstick to determine when someone has become, for all practical purposes, an ex-Christian.

Of course, I'm no clergy. I'm just one guy. But as of now, this is my own personal line in the sand: whoever gets behind these laws, this social vendetta, is no longer a Christian as far as I'm concerned. They're something else - some aberrant combination of Christianity-lite and Government.

Bureautheists, perhaps.


Drew said...

Oughta be kicking people out for a whole lot less than that.

Graham Marley said...

The tax question truly highlights the total insanity going on. Just think of it: A bunch of white liberals showing up to an impoverished black church that will not perform a same sex wedding and financially gutting it. Just wiping it off the face of the earth. They'll tear down the confederate flag, and then raise the rainbow flag over the ashes.

I'd find that irony hilarious if it wasn't so disgusting, so much evidence of liberal gaslighting, so much intellectual collapse, and such a threat of doing REAL DAMAGE.

Your point of dismissal is important: If a Christian cannot explain why tax-exempt status for churches is VERY GOOD POLICY for the entire country that would have VERY BAD CONSEQUENCES for people in and outside of the church if revoked, they don't even know what their church is FOR and thus, what are they even doing there?

darrenl said...

Although I see your point and agree with it, these people will not. If they have no problems in redefining marriage, they will not think a second to redefine what it is to be a Christian.

Crude said...


Oh, I agree. Which is why I'm not asking them to leave. That wouldn't work.

They should be thrown out.

Scott Waddell said...

The "revoke their tax status" is an old cry. I remember during elections when churches were putting voting guides, Leftists told me they wrote to the IRS. The ironic thing is that the IRS almost never steps in unless a church is flagrantly telling there members exactly who to vote for--otherwise a church has pretty much free reign. The whole point of tax-exemption is so that groups will do charitable work for the common good so that it relieves the burden on government agencies.

All the "revoke!" people are doing is betraying their own vindictiveness and that The Grinches Who Stole Marriage know deep down that they are sitting atop a desolate mountain with a bag full of hollow victories.

B. Prokop said...

HERE is a very sad article about who the real "haters" are in this debate. I found it to be quite accurate within my own family. Refuse to go along with the currently fashionable orthodoxy (i.e., engage in thought crime), and see how viciously they'll turn on you.

Yemi Fawehinmi said...


You pose a good question. I am original from Africa but I have lived here in the states for close to 19 years. So I do not know the answer in order to explain why a tax-exempt status for a Church is a good policy. Could you point me to any resources to where I could learn about that?


Graham Esposito said...

Sure, just google Justice Brennan's opinion from Walz vs New York State Tax Commission from 1970.

I tried pasting in portions I thought were relevant, but it would have been too long.

Basically, houses of worship offer unique social goods that would be very difficult to replicate on a governmental basis, and they behave in a totally different way from commercial social spaces. The goods they offer would require a government replacement, or be left more or less undone inamy communities.

That and it also provides a fiscal layer between church and state.

This is a large topic, but start with the Walz case and you'll more or less see the points.

The Deuce said...

The case against taxing churches goes beyond simple practicality to an issue of fundamental rights. A church consists of people, who already pay their income taxes, coming together to practice their rights to free practice of religion and free association. To tax them additionally for doing so would be on a similar level as taxing someone for exercising their right to free speech.

Remember, when the USA was founded there was no federal income tax at all, much less a corporate income tax that could be applied to people for forming groups to do business. Those was added later.

It's not like paying income tax has always been the default and churches were given special privileges. On the contrary, the Constitution had to be specifically amended to allow the federal income tax to be applied at all (16th Amendment). Churches weren't included because taxing people for exercising their freedom of religion would've conflicted with the 1st Amendment, and the 16th Amendment never would've passed otherwise, as everyone would've recognized it as an unacceptable encroachment of the federal leviathan into religion. If there is ANY argument to be made that this is somehow unfair, then it's an argument for getting rid of the corporate income tax for punishing the right to free association, not an argument for punishing churches for existing as well.

Notice the usual Progressive bait-and-switch being engaged in here: First they pass some law that allows the State to encroach further on people's freedoms, promising not to infringe on their fundamental rights in order to get it to pass, and carving out exemptions to avoid doing so. Then, once the original deal has been forgotten by everyone a few generations later, subsequent Progressives attempt to use the "unfairness" of the law as pretext to infringe people's rights even more, rather than rolling back the infringements that are responsible for causing the supposed "unfairness."

GoldRush Apple said...

Over at Throne & Alter, Bolland briefly talks about the "nice" Christians.

Because I’m not anybody’s leader, I don’t have to write posts to rally the troops. I see those sorts of posts at places like First Things and Crisis, going on about how we’re going to win because we’ve got Nature or God on our side, that we just have to be “winsome” and “loving” and never angry. It’s almost enough to bring one to despair, seeing how awful the arguments against despair are. I’m not going to insult your intelligence with that sort of thing. Those who will only fight if they see some hope of victory have already given up.

Crude said...

I see those sorts of posts at places like First Things and Crisis, going on about how we’re going to win because we’ve got Nature or God on our side, that we just have to be “winsome” and “loving” and never angry.

Those people more and more strike me as, first and foremost, not trying to be 'nice', but trying to encourage everyone to sit down, shut up and behave, for no other reason than to make the prominent Christians' lives easier.